Sanding our assholes with 150 grit. Slowly. Lovingly.

New twist on Eminent Domain case

Having used the Supreme Court to seize the homes of the people in Connecticut and give the homes to a big pharmaceutical company for free, the city of New London is now suing all the homeowners for five years back rent on their own properties. In many cases the back rent of up to half a million dollars is more than the amount the city is offering for the houses, which were appraised according to 2000 values, before the housing boom took place.

All perfectly legal and looks like the city will win this one:

http://fairfieldweekly.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:119000
Permalink Connecticut Sucks 
August 18th, 2005
Damn! this is a repost!

http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?off.9.187052.8

moderators - delete this thread!!

(And please start using better subject titles for these threads folks)
Permalink Connecticut Sucks 
August 18th, 2005
Sorry - it's muppet. He's incapable of posting anything which could possibly indicate the actual content of the post.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
August 18th, 2005
Horrific.
Permalink hoser 
August 19th, 2005
Pathetic.
Permalink hoser 
August 19th, 2005
Wait -- muppet is allowed to change his name now? When did this happen?
Permalink AllanL5 
August 19th, 2005
Um. Philo was telling the OP that muppet is incapable of producing a thread with a relevent subject line.
Permalink MarkTAW 
August 19th, 2005
Who needs relevant subject lines? Not me!
Permalink muppet 
August 19th, 2005
Most of us know that by now and can accommodate the gap. For the rest, if you don't want to know, don't jump - you may be able to skate over the mess.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=32011&dcn=todaysnews

Etc, etc. Unfortunately the puke is real and present. Go look how SCOTUS has failed you folks (I reside elsewhere) but our vey own little guvmint is always on the scrounge for new ideas.

Eeeew.
Permalink trollop 
August 19th, 2005
There was a sub base in New London as well? How do these stories fit together? Was it the loss of the base that caused them to go beserk in looking for new sources of tax revenue.

Sub bases have *very* nasty chemical byproducts. I bet cancer rates are high there.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
August 19th, 2005
Rich -

That's probably exactly right.

There are CONSTANT news stories in the paper and on local news right now about the poor Groton Sub Base being closed and how it's going to destroy the shoreline economy and boo hoo hoo and they're appealing the decision to close it and cry cry cry.

I can't wait until it's gone. Nobody cried or ranted or protested in support when the insurance companies fucked over 50,000 or so employees in one summer with massive stockholder-appeasing layoffs.
Permalink muppet 
August 19th, 2005
If I were being treated like these home owners, I think I would just sit back and think about other viewpoints on the matter.

And then after a refreshing cup of tea and a refresher course on chemistry, I would drive my rental truck full of explosives downtown.
Permalink flash91 
August 19th, 2005
No kidding flash.
Permalink Rich Rogers 
August 19th, 2005
The problem with closing sub bases is that there are critical welding skills used in making submarines and little else. Once those workers get laid off, those skills are gone for good, which will limit future submarine production.

Also, it continues the recent practice of spending all discretionary Federal money on the south. The submarine bases in South Carolina and Georgia are in the worst strategic locations possible for submarine basing.
Permalink Duff 
August 19th, 2005
Yeah, but how do those states vote, traditionally?
Permalink Kerplooie 
August 19th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics